NEW ZEALAND: Prime Minister Luxon lives on as leader

Flatlining or declining support, culminating in this week’s 1News-Verian poll showing the party seven points behind the Labour opposition, can partly be attributed to hard economic times and global uncertainty.

But it is Luxon’s consistently low preferred-prime-minister rating that underscores the connection between a government’s popularity and its leader’s day-to-day performance.

Lifting his party’s polling, which is the key way to dispel leadership doubts, will involve him finding ways to appeal to those voters currently deserting National for other parties.

It’s no simple task, but there are clues to what he might do in the extensive research around political and business leadership that identify what marks out effective performers from the rest.

Being ‘one of us’ in New Zealand

A substantial body of evidence built over the past four decades helps shine a light on what people look for in leaders they will admire and support.

Above all, they must believe a leader is “one of us” and what they do is “for us”. This is fundamental to convincing people a leader genuinely shares their values and interests, and therefore deserves their backing.

This has proved difficult for Luxon because of choices he has made. For example, he has repeatedly based his claim to leadership on his background as a corporate chief executive, and on taking a chief executive’s approach to the role of prime minister.

This may cement the connection with party loyalists, given National’s traditional claim to be the party that best represents business interests. But identifying oneself as a member of a small, highly paid elite undermines his chances of being seen as “one of us” by the broader population.

This is compounded by Luxon’s preference for business language and jargon, which can reinforce doubts about whose interests he has at heart.

Luxon giving a presentation – Image: NZ Education/Wikimedia

Ways of thinking

Like all people, leaders rely on what researchers variously term “mental models”, “cognitive processes”, “implicit theories” or “sensemaking”. Basically, how leaders think shapes how they act. But an individual’s perception of reality is never a complete or neutral picture.

Rather, perceptions are filtered through experience, bias, sense of self, what others think and so forth. What leaders say and do can offer meaningful clues to their underlying mental models.

Luxon’s heavy use of corporate jargon has long been noted as a problematic aspect of his communication style. But this is a clue to an underlying perception that the roles of chief executive and prime minister can be conflated.

Of course, there are some skills relevant to both. But a chief executive is in charge of running a company, accountable to a board and shareholders; a prime minister is ultimately accountable to the public and is expected to lead a country.

The assumption that success in one domain will automatically transfer to the other is flawed.

Change is never easy

Effective leaders tend to be very aware of their own biases. They will seek input from others who see things differently to challenge and broaden their own thinking.

Yet according to one recent political analysis, “One of Luxon’s weaknesses in the top job has been his inability to take feedback from colleagues, staff or officials […] Another Achilles’ heel is Luxon’s complete lack of self-doubt.”

Luxon has even sought to reframe his leadership and communication style as a virtue, saying it reflects the fact he is “not a career politician”. But this avoids the real issue.

A lot of the research about why leaders fail focuses on business examples, but many of the issues identified also appear in studies of political leaders. A clear theme is that leaders who cannot learn to change their behaviour, to respond more effectively to changing circumstances, tend to be less effective.

Overall, the research points to some of the underlying reasons Luxon is struggling to secure greater public support. But changing his approach would not be easy or guaranteed to work.

Intensive coaching and a willingness to change could make a difference. But altering one’s mental model is another matter entirely. And therein lies a paradox.

Can a political leader make themselves, or be made, more authentic, relatable and “one of us”? Or in the process, do they simply risk being seen as inauthentic for not being themselves?

Editorial: Suze Wilson, Associate Professor, School of Management and Marketing Te Kahui Kahurangi, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University

NAN  22 April 26/This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

You might also like: